mercoledì 28 dicembre 2011

Manufacturing Globalization: Is globalization to blame for rising unemployment and income inequality in the United States? Richard Katz and Robert Lawrence argue that other factors are at fault. Perhaps, says Michael Spence -- but the overarching effects of globalization cannot be denied.

For the last generation, despite the twists and turns of Conservative and Labour prime ministers, Britain has been determined to stay at the top table in Europe. Today, David Cameron, after months of posturing and disengagement, took the catastrophic decision to walk away.

We should be under no illusions about the import, the impact or the reasons behind the decision. The significance is that we have chosen to let 26 countries make crucial decisions without us. The prime minister's apparent warning at the meeting that they "couldn't use this building for their meetings" would be laughable if it was not tragic.

The impact cannot be precisely known but the scale of Britain's isolation makes it hard to believe it will not be serious. The reality of the EU is that influence does not always come from rules but from strategic alliances. This government has been left in an alliance of one. And for what? Cameron went into this summit saying his first priority was to protect Britain's financial services industry. Forty-eight hours later it is clear he achieved not one such protection.

Instead, he has delivered the reality that 26 EU countries will now meet to discuss financial services without our country being represented in the room. That is not in the interests of Britain.

And while Cameron tells us he made his decision to protect British business, it is British business that will lose when Britain is not involved in decisions about their largest export market.

The real reasons for this debacle are about internal Tory politics. Even before he entered Downing Street, Cameron pulled Conservative MEPs out of the centre-right grouping in the European parliament. It sent a clear signal he did not want to engage with anyone except mavericks from the extreme margins of European politics. In office, it has got still worse. As recently as March he was telling Angela Merkel he did not even want to be in the room when issues to do with the euro were being discussed. Europe got the message. Last week, when the leaders of centre-right parties in Spain, Germany and France met in Marseilles, Cameron was not invited.

Going into Friday's crucial summit for jobs and growth, at a time of great peril for our country, the British government was bereft of influence and allies.

The truth is that Cameron never wanted a deal at this summit because he knew he was too weak to sell it to his Eurosceptic MPs back home.

When Geoffrey Howe resigned from Margaret Thatcher's government, he complained that in European negotiations he felt like an opening batsman who found his bat had "been broken before the game by the team captain". Today, Cameron didn't even want to be on the pitch. Even before this summit began, he decided to pull stumps and retreat to the Eurosceptic pavilion.

Cameron could have been batting for British interests. Instead, he had put the Tory party's self-interest ahead of Britain's national interest. He could have built alliances over the preceding months, he could have insisted that a different deal was done rather than giving up on Thursday night. What was the alternative? He could have sought practical protections for our financial services industry rather than posturing. He could have insisted that crucial euro-area meetings affecting Britain should not take place without a British voice in the room. Instead, he has been too scared of his own backbenchers and too desperate to avoid a vote in parliament to stand up for Britain's national interests.

So preoccupied with stabilising the Tory party, Cameron has done nothing to help deliver the stability and growth in the eurozone that is so crucial to Britain's recovery. That should have meant support for the European Central Bank acting as a lender of last resort, and a recognition that ever greater collective austerity will never deliver the growth we need.

But neither of these steps were taken.

I fear that we will come to rue the fact that the summit was a political disaster and an economic failure for Britain and Europe. What does this mean for British politics? We know where the Tory party now stands. But it does not command a parliamentary majority.

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister and leader of the unashamedly pro-European Liberal Democrats, said before the summit that the key aim was to do "everything we can to avoid a great big split in the European Union" because that would be "bad for jobs and growth in this country".

Can Clegg really look his party – or the country – in the eye and say this has not now happened? It is time for him and Liberal Democrats to ask whether this is really what they came into politics for.

Cameron has not wielded a veto as he claims. He has simply lost.

This is a terrible outcome for British business, British jobs and for Britain.

Mexican media began reporting Dec. 2 of a narcomanta attributed to Miguel “Z-40” Trevino Morales, the overall No. 2 leader of Los Zetas, that appeared in an as yet undisclosed city in Mexico. In a clear threat to Mexican authorities, the banner read, “The special forces of Los Zetas challenge the government of Mexico.” The banner went on to say that “Mexico lives and will continue under the regime of Los Zetas. Let it be clear that we are in control here and although the federal government controls other cartels, they cannot take our plazas … Look at what happened in Sinaloa and Guadalajara.” The last sentence is a reference to the mass killings and body dumps attributed to the Zetas in Culiacan and Guadalajara discovered Nov. 23.

The language used in the banner is intriguing; never before has a cartel referred to itself as a “regime,” and such brazen, adversarial terminology directed against the Mexican government is uncommon. It is difficult to imagine a drug cartel with a pedigree as violent as the Zetas wanting to assume governmental duties. Historically, while cartels have exerted influence over portions of Mexico, they have not sought to actually govern. Instead they use corruption or fear to ensure an unrestricted ability to conduct their criminal operations.

Though it specifically references the incidents in Culiacan and Guadalajara, there is no way to verify that Trevino actually commissioned the banner. Trevino has commissioned banners in the past, and, given his predilection for violence, his underlings would be unlikely to author something on his behalf without his approval. The fact that the message in this banner is so out of character suggests the possibility that it is a disinformation campaign directed against Los Zetas. If this is indeed a disinformation effort, the Sinaloa Federation, which, as the other pre-eminent cartel in Mexico, has the most to gain from increased government action against the Zetas, cannot be ruled out.

What is more interesting than the content of the banner is how little is known about its origins. No media agency has definitely stated where the banner was found — or if there were others like it. Narcomantas are prevalent in Mexico, and details of their appearances are not hard to come by in the media. Also, major messages are frequently left with the bodies of mutilated enemies to prove bona fides. But for whatever reason, no agency has been able to ascertain the location of this banner (a rumor surfaced that it appeared in Ciudad Victoria in Zetas territory, but that rumor remains unconfirmed). That six days have passed without any indication of the location suggests the Mexican government, which is constantly attempting to maintain an image of control in the war on drugs, is taking the threat seriously and is disallowing the details of the banner’s location to come out.

My comment

This is what we have precognized taking into account the possible scenarios for the presidential elections in 2012; more is still to come.

The European Union will vote Dec. 9 on whether to grant EU candidate status to Serbia. The vote follows a Dec. 2 agreement between Serbia and Kosovo to end the protracted standoff between NATO’s peacekeeping Kosovo Force (KFOR) and Serb rioters at border checkpoints. The standoff began in July when ethnic Albanian Kosovo police forces were sent to the border to enforce a boycott on Serbian goods. Serbs rioted at border crossings in Serb-majority northern Kosovo and set up nearly two dozen barricades on the roads leading to the checkpoints. What ensued was a standoff between KFOR and Serbs, who were looking to prevent Pristina officials from taking over the border crossings. The EU-facilitated Integrated Borders Management concept is intended to end the border barricades conflict. The agreement stipulates that ethnic Serbs will remove their barricades in northern Kosovo and that officials from Kosovo, Serbia and the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo will establish and man joint border checkpoints at common crossing points. Though the deal has calmed the border situation, it likely will be insufficient to sway all members of the European Union to approve Serbia’s candidate status. Serbia might threaten diplomatic action or instability in response, but the country remains isolated from the European Union and NATO, its military options are limited, and it is badly in need of EU investment. Therefore, Brussels can wait to grant candidate status until Belgrade shows serious progress toward normalization of relations with Kosovo.

giovedì 8 dicembre 2011

Our country went from a sovereignty limited by the loss of the Second World War, and the resulting link within the NATO, which in practice sanctioned our dependence from the USA, now our loss of sovereignty is related to the enormous public debt. Yesterday it was the cause of historical and objectively linked to incorrect assessments of the individual, now it depends on the result of political decisions taken-knowingly-although they were clearly wrong, with the sole aim to please the voters, the friend or relative. In both cases no one knows why, and this is a fact, for what strange reason we can not see into the future and do the right thing.

mercoledì 23 novembre 2011

Thenfinallyit is clear thatthe Arab spring is not yeta true movement aimed to reach a type of democracy, as we imagine, but for a neworder that is notnecessarily,evenwith lowprobability,will be based on it.The new orderwill certainly beof fideisticnatureandmore orless radicalin relation to thedifferent sensibilities and local cultures.Once againthe hypocrisyof ouropinion leades collideswith history, newsand reality.

martedì 22 novembre 2011

A reflection on this theme, although not extensive, leads me to share the thinking of the President of Censis, Giuseppe De Rita, who in his book "The eclipse of the Bourgeoisie", centers, with clarity and simplicity the crisis of our contemporary society: the Italian middle class, after the efforts do the '60s, is tired and not having made the unfinished step forward with the creation of an enlightened bourgeoisie (like the English nineteenth century). It, the middle class, has acquired some materials elements not having turned into a ruling class and being the victim of historical elites who today continues to manage the state. Now, this tiredness, sluggishness and inertia, can be overcome in what way? A new humanism, a new project with the human being at the center.